Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.math |
| Subject | Re: Déjà vu |
| Date | 2017-01-11 01:48 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <0de5d760-6ea2-7279-eafc-5becd3512159@att.net> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <e2716fc6-cf22-4dcd-a8c7-eb3429832c06@googlegroups.com> <7662765b-88ba-c977-7346-1dc11c49cbd3@att.net> <537f9214-0e1b-4199-afdc-6b9d335b92e0@googlegroups.com> <72a7584a-fc66-2fee-2101-0c3052a5efb3@att.net> <a33710fd-9842-49ad-8fb9-394455ddda1d@googlegroups.com> |
On 1/10/2017 8:25 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 15:08:28 UTC-8,
> Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 1/10/2017 2:05 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 06:49:08 UTC-8,
>>> Jim Burns wrote:
>>>> You made no attempt to clarify _what_ you were talking
>>>> about, and it's a pretty good bet that whatever
>>>> you mean (if anything) it is different from what
>>>> WM means (if anything) by the same terms.
>>>
>>> Oh really? You mean that
>>> "There is no such thing as infinity."
>>> is not clarifying my standpoint? Chuckle
>>
>> Chuckle. No, it's not clarifying your standpoint.
>> I don't expect you to understand that.
>
> Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is,
> there is no further discussion necessary because
> the concept of infinity is bogus.
Well, Ross was right that there's no point in trying
to educate such as you. But there may be someone else
who reads this.
"The concept of infinity is bogus" And so?
Is infinity a floor wax? Is it a dessert topping?
Do you think you said something there?
>> Here's a similar example:
>> "There is such a thing as autosubbijectibility."
>
> I don't think that word exists so it's not an example,
> never mind similar.
As I expected, you hadn't read the post you responded to.
The main difference between the examples is that
_I told you what I meant_ by autosubbijectibility, though
I did that in the post you responded to and then I snipped
the explanation here. _You_ still haven't said what you
mean by infinity, anywhere, nor do you realize it
could mean any several things. _That_ is a truly impressive
display of blockheadedness, considering that you
crashed a discussion of the _difference_ between complete
infinity and potential infinity.
Here's my explanation of "autosubbijectibility"
<unsnip>
>>>> A lovely property of things-like-those-labels
>>>> is that there is a matching, one-to-one both ways,
>>>> between the collection of things and and an
>>>> incomplete part of the collection of things.
>>>> (AKA, a bijection between the collection and a
>>>> proper subset of the collection).
>>>> So, instead of "infinite", we could make up a word,
>>>> "autosubbijectible" and call things-like-those-labels
>>>> autosubbijectible.
</unsnip>
Since what I'm calling "infinity" (and also
"autosubbijectibility", FYI) involves the labels for the
naturals 0, 1, 2, 3, ... you apparently are calling
the natural numbers bogus.
Did you want to call the natural numbers bogus?
You seem quite fond of the classical Greeks.
Do you think that they would have wanted you to call
the natural numbers bogus?
To be clear, I am not asking you those questions.
I don't care what you have to say in answer.
They are questions you ought to have asked yourself
and didn't.
Not that I expect you to try to answer them.
I expect you to bravely, bravely run away from these
sorts of questions, like Brave Sir Robin. And why
shouldn't you bravely, bravely run away? You can throw
insults around! I'm sure the classical Greeks must have
proved that throwing insults is better than knowing things.
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 12:34 -0500
Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-09 10:08 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 17:18 -0500
Re: Déjà vu genmailus@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 14:28 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 17:55 -0500
Re: Déjà vu Me <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 17:12 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 20:55 -0500
Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 18:08 -0800
Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 23:08 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 10:55 -0500
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 05:13 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 09:49 -0500
Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-10 07:44 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 11:45 -0500
Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-10 09:51 -0800
Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 10:33 -0800
Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 10:35 -0800
Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 13:00 -0800
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 11:05 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 18:08 -0500
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 17:25 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 01:48 -0500
Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 23:24 -0800
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 00:34 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 11:26 -0500
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 08:55 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 12:13 -0500
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:20 -0800
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:22 -0800
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:23 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 13:11 -0500
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:26 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 13:42 -0500
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:50 -0800
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:58 -0800
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 11:01 -0800
Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 11:03 -0800
Re: Déjà vu bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-01-11 11:11 -0800
Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-10 00:03 -0800
Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 10:21 -0500
csiph-web